From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Invisibility bug: `invisible' vs `display' Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:42:12 +0100 Message-ID: <863b4yxvu3.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <87sldbtd50.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <87hctraqhh.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87hctq6eyd.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <861wkucyxw.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <87ps8e9k8e.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <87vehu99x7.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1172144563 31407 80.91.229.12 (22 Feb 2007 11:42:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:42:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Daniel Brockman , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 22 12:42:36 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HKCLK-0007XX-CE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:42:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HKCLI-0006eL-N5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:42:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HKCL4-0006cl-9r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:42:18 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HKCL3-0006c0-Be for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:42:17 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HKCL3-0006bZ-5R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:42:17 -0500 Original-Received: from pc3.berlin.powerweb.de ([62.67.228.11]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1HKCL2-0005cG-BZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:42:16 -0500 Original-Received: from quinscape.de (pd95b0fdb.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.91.15.219]) by pc3.berlin.powerweb.de (8.9.3p3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22100 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:42:11 +0100 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 24712 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2007 11:42:13 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by ns.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 22 Feb 2007 11:42:13 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 1BF7A23889; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:42:13 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Kim F. Storm's message of "Thu\, 22 Feb 2007 12\:27\:01 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:66608 Archived-At: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes: > Daniel Brockman writes: > >> When folding stretches of code, it does not make sense to >> have images in between cluster all together and stick out >> in spite of the invisibility of the region. > > That is clearly a bug. > >> This patch fixes the problem for me. > > Thank you. > > Mixing invisible and display properties -- with the desire to actually > get the effects of the display property looks very obscure to me, and > cannot image that any code is actually relying on such functionality. > > I think the change is safe, so I installed it. Sigh. If you use preview-latex on material where _some_ of it is made invisible using TeX-fold-mode, the desired outcome will be to get the display, and get it once only. I can't vouch for the patch being either a step in the right or wrong direction. But I'd clearly like to see fewer "I think it should work and can't imagine anybody actually using it, anyway" patches at this point in the game. If we don't have the time or resources of assessing the ramifications of a patch, there is really little incentive to not rather try them out in the course of version 22.2. -- David Kastrup